Tyyr wrote:And you're not talking about buying a 747 to crash into a building. You're talking about buying one to destroy a city or more. And hell, who says you have to buy it? Steal it. The terrorists on 9/11 sure as hell weren't holding the pink slips on those airplanes.

Mikey wrote:People who murder children or other uninvolved innocents in order to make a political vocalization are irrational, as would be people who expend exorbitant amounts of resources to accomplish such goals.

Deepcrush wrote:Mass murder isn't rational, and that won't change no matter how you try to spin it.

There might be nothing rational about the action they decide to take, but they are extremely rational about the way they will achieve their actions.

Funny how "irrational" people can manage to have an organisation that has efficient fund collecting around the world, a recruitment process, established training camps, propaganda structure, etc...

I am not saying the actions they took are justified, etc... I am saying they aren't acting dumb while doing it, even less so the people at the TOP of these organisations, the ones who would never dare blow themselves up (also known as "hypocrits"). If Al-Qaeda managed to get their hand on a freight ship, they wouldn't use it to ram Port X or Y, they would use it to smuggle personnel and equipment, to be able to deploy better personnel to strike more easily and more often.

They would rationally use the assets handed to them. Hijacking an airliner is simply taking control over a very short-term control of an asset, and you can't do anything with the plane anyway, as it has an incredibly high cost of maintenance, and it's sooo easy to track them all down, so you can't "fly under the radar", so the utility of such asset is limited to a strike.

If they put their hands on a smaller plane that could be used in their operations, I doubt they would waste it ramming it.

So that's it. A "small" starship that terrorist would manage to put their hands on would be better served to further their cause and help their organisation than as a kinetic weapon.

I am so happy that stick is so far up your ass you can't be bothered to think things through or read. You brought up buying a ship to do that with which is the most idiotic thing you could do. The second most would be stealing one and then keeping it.

Did it ever occur to you that holding onto the ship is the stupidest thing you can do? 24th Century lojack, the fact that the person who owns it probably wants it back, the fact that the authorities will no doubt be looking for it an alert people to it. The fact that unless you own a cloak hiding it but still using it for anything is almost impossible. Never mind the fact that you have to operate the damned thing which requires access to trained maintenance people, spare parts, fuel, and the cash to get your hands on all this. A starship wouldn't be like buying a 747, it would be like buying a container ship. A few orders of magnitude more expensive, harder to maintain, and harder to hide.

Then again, blowing things up. I don't recall a single civilian vessel in Trek that has really had any kind of firepower remotely like what a Federation or other major government's ship could pump out. The damage a hijacked freighter could do plinking away with its few small phasers would be nothing compared to what you could do with good old KE. Not to mention trying to use phasers would just get your ass captured that much quicker as the good guys come after you.

Slamming a shuttle or starship into the surface at a high velocity would be incredibly destructive, hard to defend against, and hard to predict. Once a terrorist group has control of a starship they can either use it immediately or hold onto it. They use it as a KE bomb and they can do a huge amount of damage. Keep it and its an albatross around their neck.

There's a reason terrorists groups today stick with assault rifles, pistols, and C4. They're cheap, easy to conceal, and aren't likely to get your ass caught. That's why they don't hijack an airplane and then keep it, or try to buy tanks, or surplus jet fighters. Doing so would just be a waste of time and get their asses caught. If they need something for an operation they swipe it and use it immediately. Their biggest strength is that they don't tie themselves down to large assets.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:If Al-Qaeda managed to get their hand on a freight ship, they wouldn't use it to ram Port X or Y, they would use it to smuggle personnel and equipment, to be able to deploy better personnel to strike more easily and more often.

Except they don't, because its stupid. Any large asset they touch is useful to them one time and that's it. After that it's just a liability. You have to maintain it, base it, and everyone in the world is looking for it once they know about it. If Al-Qaeda needs a boat ride they bum one off someone, or smuggle what they need to, or if it comes to that they'll hijack it. They don't try and steal one and then keep it.

So that's it. A "small" starship that terrorist would manage to put their hands on would be better served to further their cause and help their organisation than as a kinetic weapon.

Except that it's only use is either as a KE weapon or a one time use transport. Since it's easier to get a ride than your hands on a city busting weapon the KE weapon is the option that makes sense.

So, Solka - you're saying that a man who is willing to blow up (for example) a school bus to make a point would consider using an expensive asset to be "irrational?" I ain't buying what you're selling.

I think he's pointing out that the people who give the orders to the guy who blows himself up are rational. Which they are, in a rather twisted way. However my point is that it's not rational to try and hold onto large assets that provide only minimal service while greatly increasing the chances it'll get your ass caught.

You're right, but there's an even more direct route to the logic of the issue. A guy who would murder innocent kids for his "cause" would think nothing of using a valuable material asset for the same cause.

Mikey wrote:You're right, but there's an even more direct route to the logic of the issue. A guy who would murder innocent kids for his "cause" would think nothing of using a valuable material asset for the same cause.

This is where you fail at terrorist logic. The guy doesn't consider the innocent kid to be important, while he would consider valuable asset X to be.

Twisted, but (within their mindframe) rational. It's like the guy who consider his personnal car's paintjob to be more important than somebody else's health. In the case of terrorist organisation, I don't see why they would yield any kind of importance to what they believe are their ennemies.

Tyyr wrote:I think he's pointing out that the people who give the orders to the guy who blows himself up are rational. Which they are, in a rather twisted way. However my point is that it's not rational to try and hold onto large assets that provide only minimal service while greatly increasing the chances it'll get your ass caught.

I guess it depends on how much of a liability the asset is, obviously. The point with an airliner is easy to make in the modern world. But in an universe like Star Wars, where you have stolen ships here and there, I don't see how it's THAT much of a liability to own the Millenium Condor, which is simply one YT-1300 like any others. Or in the Verse, where a Firefly is just like any Firefly, as long as you spend ennough money on false paperwork, you can get by without much problem.

And small freight ships like the one I mentionned would be more than useful for terrorist organisations, to move personnel, materiel and generate income.

I am also trying to think of example of privately owned ships in the Trekverse. Probably the Orion syndicates own some. Or a few of Quark's previous business associates (weapon salesmen, Kira-obsessed businessman played by Jeffrey Comb, the slutty smuggling captain). Hell, NEELIX owned a ship. I don't doubt it's probably ain't that hard to improvise false IDs for ships like that if you want to keep a low-profile (and then again, not only to operate within the Federation under Starfleet's nose. There are probably pivately owned starships in the Klingon Empire, not to forget the Ferengi themselves).

Mikey wrote:You're right, but there's an even more direct route to the logic of the issue. A guy who would murder innocent kids for his "cause" would think nothing of using a valuable material asset for the same cause.

This is where you fail at terrorist logic. The guy doesn't consider the innocent kid to be important, while he would consider valuable asset X to be.

Twisted, but (within their mindframe) rational. It's like the guy who consider his personnal car's paintjob to be more important than somebody else's health. In the case of terrorist organisation, I don't see why they would yield any kind of importance to what they believe are their ennemies.

No, this is where you fail. I know that the terrorist considers asset x to be more important than the kids; that's not the point at all. The point is that if he's willing to murder those kids, he's also willing to sacrifice said valuable asset.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:But in an universe like Star Wars, where you have stolen ships here and there, I don't see how it's THAT much of a liability to own the Millenium Condor, which is simply one YT-1300 like any others. Or in the Verse, where a Firefly is just like any Firefly, as long as you spend ennough money on false paperwork, you can get by without much problem.

If a terrorist organization steals a ship you can be sure that the authorities will be on the look out for that kind of ship. If you steal a class X ship the next time a class X ship shows up somewhere unexpected people in charge will notice and investigate. Class X ships will be subjected to more intense scrutiny. It all creates heat that the terrorists will not want. Much easier to just hitch a legit ride on a ship or smuggle things randomly.

And small freight ships like the one I mentionned would be more than useful for terrorist organisations, to move personnel, materiel and generate income.

Again, terrorist organizations don't need ships to do any of the above. Terrorists can move personnel and material just fine because terrorists are low key. They don't have to move a tank, they just have to move a crate full of explosives. They don't need to move around giant containers full of shit, they just pack what they need in a backpack and carry it with them. They don't invest heavily in material assets that cannot be replaced quickly and cheaply because it allows them the option to just drop it and go. They don't need dedicated illicit transport when they can use perfectly legitimate means of transport. The terrorists who trained for 9/11 didn't sneak into the US via a secret Al-Queada freighter. They booked a flight.

I am also trying to think of example of privately owned ships in the Trekverse. Probably the Orion syndicates own some. Or a few of Quark's previous business associates (weapon salesmen, Kira-obsessed businessman played by Jeffrey Comb, the slutty smuggling captain). Hell, NEELIX owned a ship. I don't doubt it's probably ain't that hard to improvise false IDs for ships like that if you want to keep a low-profile (and then again, not only to operate within the Federation under Starfleet's nose. There are probably pivately owned starships in the Klingon Empire, not to forget the Ferengi themselves).

Given the capability of Trek sensors it'll take more than falsified papers to slip through security. Still, go back to my main point. Why bother with that when you can just use perfectly legit transports that you don't have to take any responsibility or ownership for?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:This is where you fail at terrorist logic. The guy doesn't consider the innocent kid to be important, while he would consider valuable asset X to be.

Twisted, but (within their mindframe) rational. It's like the guy who consider his personnal car's paintjob to be more important than somebody else's health. In the case of terrorist organisation, I don't see why they would yield any kind of importance to what they believe are their ennemies.

No, this is where you fail. I know that the terrorist considers asset x to be more important than the kids; that's not the point at all. The point is that if he's willing to murder those kids, he's also willing to sacrifice said valuable asset.

I don't see how murdering kids he doesn't care about makes him more likely to destroy an asset he might find valuable.

The point is: KIDS HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT. Doesn't. Care. About. 0 interest. No value. Nada. He sees them as the ennemy, and has no second thought about killing them.

But Muhammad's car? Damn.. he might need it for the next terrorist who comes around, ye know. Better try to save it up, after all, we don't want to attract too much attention before a potential strike by stealing a car. Better keep the tools we have and we can afford to spare.

Although, a car is probably a bad example, because it happens to be a very efficient bomb-delivery device. How about a lab?

Lighthawk wrote:I might suggest that Solka is confusing terrorist groups with a guerrilla militia, the latter of which would be interested in gaining possession of vehicles to a degree.

I don't see how you can possibly figure that an non-government organisation of any kind would accept to waste valuable materials whatsoever. Terrorists organisation still have assets they want to exploit to conduct their strike, but it's assets they could always reuse. They don't have unlimited budget.

Lighthawk wrote:I might suggest that Solka is confusing terrorist groups with a guerrilla militia, the latter of which would be interested in gaining possession of vehicles to a degree.

I don't see how you can possibly figure that an non-government organisation of any kind would accept to waste valuable materials whatsoever. Terrorists organisation still have assets they want to exploit to conduct their strike, but it's assets they could always reuse. They don't have unlimited budget.

I don't think I can say it any better than Tyyr already has, his argument would be mine. I will add this though, part of what makes terrorist groups hard to find is their habit of using and losing equipment. That they don't have a stash of cars, planes, and boats on hand means their isn't a trail of fuel, spare parts, and other goods required for such vehicles for the authorities to follow.